What We Know from Zimmerman Juror B37

Since Saturday's verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, Juror B37 has spoken about the behind-the-scenes process of deliberation. Emily Bazelon, senior editor at Slate and panelist on Radio Gabfest, joins us to discuss what the juror's disclosures indicate about the trial.

Guests:

Tags:

Comments [215]

"And what about the question, simply, of violent crime statistics for just about anywhere in the U.S.? Aren't there clear, undeniable patterns that are quite relevant here?"

No. There are no clear statistics to back up your point. 94% of crimes against blacks committed by blacks. 86% of crimes against whites are committed by whites. Is the 8% difference enough to justify the universal suspicion. I think not.

"If, as the relevant statistics clearly indicate, a particular type of crimes are overwhelmingly disproportionately committed by a particular demographic, then isn't it only logical, rational and reasonable to suspect individuals of that demographic of posing a threat as concerns the crimes in question more so than individuals not of said demographic?"

The stats are themselves biased as blacks tend to be suspected, detained, arrested, charged and convicted far more frequently than whites EVEN WHEN they are no more likely than whites to have committed a crime. Check drug usage by race versus incarceration rates. This is part of the reason why 'stop and frisk' is so odious. It places an additional burden on being black and young in NYC.

Concentrate on income factors, not race and you will get better answers to issues of crime.

During this segment with Bazelon, it was claimed* and stressed that Zimmerman had a record of having reported mostly Black people in the past to 911 as suspicious.

(*I say "claimed" simply because I do not /know/ it to have been established as a fact-- not to make any insinuations.)

But in how many of those cases were Zimmerman's suspicions vindicated-- whether because the individuals in question went-on to at least attempt a crime or were found to have a record of committing crimes involving violence, theft, or coercion of some kind? (not merely drug "crimes")

Was it not the case that Zimmerman's neighborhood had suffered a number of robberies that were committed by Blacks? And that these, where the perpetrator was black, constituted a /clear/, if not /overwhelming/ majority of the total number of such incidents?

And what about the question, simply, of violent crime statistics for just about anywhere in the U.S.? Aren't there clear, undeniable patterns that are quite relevant here?

If, as the relevant statistics clearly indicate, a particular type of crimes are overwhelmingly disproportionately committed by a particular demographic, then isn't it only logical, rational and reasonable to suspect individuals of that demographic of posing a threat as concerns the crimes in question more so than individuals not of said demographic?

Is that /fair/ to the many members of that demographic, in this case young Black males, who do not commit such crimes or pose any such threat? Of course not and I can only sympathize with such people, who I realize are many and probably the majority. But that's life. Since when has it been fair? (As far as /we/ can see)

At the end of her interview, Ms. Bazelon pretends to weigh in against "ignorance" as a positive attribute for jurors. How less becoming it is when worn by partisans pretending to be knowledgeable legal pundits.Since New York State is not known as a "stand your ground" state, how does she explain the not guilty verdict for a black homeowner who, gun in hand, left his house to confront three white teenagers he believed were stealing from a neighbor's car. He shot one of the teenagers dead. As already stated he was acquitted by a jury verdict. (Will anyone tell Obama? or Brian?)

For the President, who wants to know about the outcome if the roles were reversed, for the dipsomaniacs who imagine that some open brandishing of the gun (a probably illegal act) would have changed the outcome, and for the short sighted mob that wants to curtail a person's legal claim to the justifiable use of deadly force.

"Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April [2009]. . . . "

" . . . Worse still is the fact that there are plenty of people in Roderick Scott’s neighborhood, and in the greater Western New York area, who wrongly think he’s a murderer. The local AM talk shows featured many Mondy morning quarterbacks, newly minted firearms experts pontificating from ignroance on why the shooting could not be justified. Why, after the fact, we learned that those teenagers weren’t armed this time, so clearly Roderick Scott could not have feared for his life. After all, the man dared to leave his home and confront those committing a crime. Has he learned nothing from living in modern society in New York State? You’re supposed to cower in your home, hiding under the couch, praying dearly that those terrible, mean people outside won’t choose to come inside. You’ll have plenty of time to pray while you’re on hold with the 911 operator, waiting for police who can’t possibly get there in time.

This is what’s wrong with the culture of New York State. Our state values victims over victors. It enshrines passivity over direct action to preempt or thwart criminal activity. It excuses the acts of teenaged thugs, revising history to absolve them of blame for their petty crimes, while pillorying good citizens who dare to defend themselves with legally permitted arms. . . ."

"Your continued arguments belie a view that Zimmerman committed all the wrong in this incident and Martin was just an innocent child. You don't know that - but that continues to be the basis from which you argue."

And your attempts at completing my thought processes are patronizing and inaccurate. Since your crystal ball is so hazy, perhaps you had better put it away.

Neither you are I were there. Let's not get hung up on the assault issue - I will contend FOREVER that Z assaulted M first. You will contend that walking or following or whatever is not assault. If you follow me and then impede my free progress, you have assaulted me. Does that assault need to be answered with battery. We all think not. Let's instead following the chain of fear.

Did Z fear M? You betcha recent experience of robberies and thefts in his neighborhood made him suspicious of 'unknowns'. He was on 'automatic' more or less. Did M fear Z? Not until he realized that Z was following him. And apparently his fear caused a violent reaction that resulted in him getting shot. Happy will be the day when one or another of the ammo makers makes a 99.9% reliable non-lethal weapon with stopping power.

To follow the President's hypothetical, if M had seen Z getting out of his car and believed him to be reaching for a weapon, would he have been justified in shooting first? Stand your Ground gives too much incentive to be the last man standing. This has been my only point since this started.

@ RUCB_Alum "To ACCEPT that M was not being assaulted is to reduce the dead man's side of the story to zero. That's certainly not logical."

No, to continually assert that walking in your own neighborhood is an assault is to be obstinately obtuse. You, of course will reply that Zimmerman was not just walking, he was following Martin. But, the question is WHAT WAS ZIMMERMAN DOING? Answer: WALKING #perhaps even hurriedly#. Repeatedly describing walking as assault is just asinine.

"The bigger leap is to pull out a gun and shoot the guy who is beating you up. It is not unreasonable but it is the bigger divergence from the mean re: human behavior"

But Zimmerman's claim #and his injuries seem to support his version# wasn't that Martin was merely kicking his a$$ - it was that Martin as sitting on top of him & bashing his head on the sidewalk. IF that is what happened, what Zimmerman did was not a divergence from "the mean re" human behavior."

Your continued arguments belie a view that Zimmerman committed all the wrong in this incident and Martin was just an innocent child. You don't know that - but that continues to be the basis from which you argue.

The "Speechifier-in-Chief" pretty well destroyed the "In-trade Market" on whether or not there will be a federal civil rights criminal case brought against Mr. Zimmerman:

" ... But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government -- the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels...."http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/obama-talks-about-trayvon-in-surprise-speech.html

One more thing. I have black neighbors (not just in my neighborhood) but in my building. I've know them since the blackout when they invited me and my wife into their home to talk through a long, sweaty night, until we could finally sleep out of exhaustion.

I can say without any bit of exaggeration that I would lay down my own life for them, without question, they are some of the best human beings I have ever had the pleasure to know. Nothing shocked me more than when I first came to the city 15+ years ago and watched, as I took the 6 train to my first job, how generous the black people in the Bronx were, completely independent of race (white bum or black bum)even though those people were simply "living for the city" and probably didn't have a dime to spare. Try that on Wall Street.

I try to think the best of people. Maybe Zimmerman did too, even if he was a dummy about it. Don't forget that Zimmerman was in his own neighborhood, that none of his black neighbors testified against him, that he started a business with his black best friend. Maybe he wasn't a racist? Maybe he just wanted to protect the people he cared for?

There hasn't been much fair minded reportage of the events leading up to this unfortunate shooting, maybe read this (well sourced) article and tell me what you think?

"Black males are way overrepresented in the criminal justice system.But most blacks and latinos are NOT criminals.But maybe white folks don't know this,because we still live in a segregated world,with disparities ongoing since slavery."

You are way, way off. I couldn't agree with you more. In our criminal justice system when blacks are defendants they are treated far, far more harshly, with higher bail imposed, longer sentences imposed and outright demonization. I see it everyday.

All I'm saying is that this case is not about THAT. If you want to make it about that I applaud you but leave off Zimmerman. He's a schmuck, not another Bernie Getz. You may disagree but let me ask you this: Cui Bono?

Who makes out on all this BS? It's the media selling clicks and the politicians bidding votes, divide and conquer. Poor black people and poor white people at odds over a politically racialized divide when the people who are making the $$$ sit in the media centers and hallowed halls of government, totally overjoyed they are turning us against each other. Don't fall for it, it's just a scam.

Black males are way overrepresented in the criminal justice system.But most blacks and latinos are NOT criminals.But maybe white folks don't know this, because we still live in a segregated world, with disparities ongoing since slavery.

"Can you posssibly admit that you don't KNOW what happened? I certainly don't claim that I know - I'm responding to your assertion that it was acceptable for Martin to jump Zimmerman for following him."

Where did I say that? I do recall stating that some people respond to fear/alarm/being startled, etc. with violence. Z (intentionally or not) put M in a fearful state and the physical attack - though extreme - was not or should not have been unexpected.

The bigger leap is to pull out a gun and shoot the guy who is beating you up. It is not unreasonable but it is the bigger divergence from the mean re: human behavior.

Because black/latino males are disproportionately caught up in the criminal justice system, means that a black male walking slowly in the rain and doing nothing criminal should be assumed to be doing something criminal? (And can be indiscreetly pursued without one first announcing oneself and addressing him respectfully? And then not allow for the fact that he could reasonably perceive the unidentified pursuing stranger as creepy, scary and provocative?)

You've been quite candid about your previous experience and areas of expertise, primarily IT and fast food, amiright? Do I remember correctly or should I post a link to your previous post?

When there is a segment on "best malware for your PC" or "how hot does the oil in the fryolator get?" I know you'll be on top of it and I'll give your posts on those subject the respect they deserve but leave the legal analysis for those in the field of law, not french fries. Thank you.

See if you can stay with me on this. YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW. WHAT. YOU. ARE. TALKING. ABOUT.

Whoever told you that an assault begins with how the supposedly assaulted person "feels" is lying to you. It begins with a threat, a legitimate threat from the supposed assaulter like "I'm going to kick your *ss" or by doing something like pointing a gun at another person. For Assault to be proven there has to be a threat and the assaulted person has to KNOW of the threat to be assaulted by it. None of this applies to the Zimmerman case, obviously. Justt give it a rest. Do you think you have some sort of special insight the Florida DA doesn't, or know the law better? Are you for real? If there was any possibility Zimmerman committed an Assault they would have brought it up in the trial, duh, duh, duh, duh...

You wrote:

"Violence is not always a good response to a challenge but IT IS the way many of our minorities have been socialized. SYG laws are a way to declare war on a sub-culture. We need to see that it gets fixed."

If this isn't a way of saying that "beating up people is part of black culture" then I guess you're just too subtle for me my friend, why doncha explain your way out of it? Or move the goal posts or whatever you need to do because you're not really adding much to the conversation except easily dismissed nonsensical legal analysis.

I get it. We all get it. Trayvon was black, Zimmerman was not black so therefore is was a "racist" crime. That's all you and your pals are saying really so why not just leave it at that? At least then you might be right, because I can't prove Zimmerman is NOT racist. And there just isn't any evidence that he was/is racist. So you can believe whatever you want, but it has no basis in provable fact.

@RUCB_ALum from Central New Jersey "@David...You are spending a lot of energy in seeing what you want to see..."

Interesting, but of course you're view is total objective reality.

Can you posssibly admit that you don't KNOW what happened? I certainly don't claim that I know - I'm responding to your assertion that it was acceptable for Martin to jump Zimmerman for following him.

Martin didn't like Zimmerman following him, I get it. He was even freaked out by that - I get that too. The solution is to jump the guy - bzzzt.

Martin had NO RIGHT to jump Zimmerman (IF that is what happened).

Now, if Zimmerman laid his hands on Martin first, different story. Unfortunately, if it happened that way, there was insufficient proof for conviction. Doesn't make what happened ok, just not convictable.

Our justice system is imperfect & personally, I'm more concerned with all the wrongful convictions than the Zimmermans out there. There's far more wrongful convictions & plea deals made with incredibly bad legal advice.

"Walking is NEVER assault, YOU might not like ME walking - that's tough sh#t, not assault. Not even in NYC! Please get a grip."

That would depend...If I see you on multiple corners following me, on the phone or with your hands in your pockets, I might be alarmed if you later approached me.

Z was following M not walking...He was (for a while at least) in a vehicle. Oh, if he had only stayed in it. Whether M perceived Z as a threat would be a jury question as M is not around to tell his side. To ACCEPT that M was not being assaulted is to reduce the dead man's side of the story to zero. That's certainly not logical.

Hmmmm....Okay, you've got a conclusion but no premises or support for it. It's the blogging equivalent to name-calling. Cite some evidence, then we can talk.

Ohh....now I get it...You are unwilling to accept that the assault began when Zimmerman was following Martin. If I make you think that a physical contact is going to happen, the assault has begun. It's not a logical conclusion it is accepted common law. What's so hard about that? And reasonable people react to perceived threats differently. What's so tough about that?"

Walking is NEVER assault, YOU might not like ME walking - that's tough sh#t, not assault. Not even in NYC! Please get a grip.

Hmmmm....Okay, you've got a conclusion but no premises or support for it. It's the blogging equivalent to name-calling. Cite some evidence, then we can talk.

Ohh....now I get it...You are unwilling to accept that the assault began when Zimmerman was following Martin. If I make you think that a physical contact is going to happen, the assault has begun. It's not a logical conclusion it is accepted common law. What's so hard about that? And reasonable people react to perceived threats differently. What's so tough about that?

It is the fact that Mr. Zimmerman had injuries from a physical confrontation that makes him appear guilty to me. The purpose of being armed is to protect yourself from the beginning so that such a confrontation does not occur. As a volunteer watch man working with police in his community, I would think he would have been trained and required to follow police procedures.

"Jesus god, whenever you refute one point the Pro-Trayvon crowd just MAKES UP SOMETHING ELSE."

I am making nothing up. Zimmerman's mere following Trayvon was perceived as a threat. In my understanding of common law, an assault begins when a person perceives themselves to be in danger. The perception of threat is only one element of the complete chain it takes to make the crime. Mr. Zimmerman put Trayvon in fear of potential physical contact when he stepped out of his car. That is when the element of assault lies. Florida's own statute on assault is worded to include 'threat to do violence'. This opens the door to the reasonable man standard of whether a threat was real or imagined. It tends to uneven outcomes. Whether Trayvon felt threatened by potential violence would be an element for the jury to resolve. But Zimmerman's solution took care of that problem.

"This same poster claimed that beating up people is part of black culture."

Where did I say that? The Halloween Punch example demonstrates a difference in reaction to a threat. It was meant to show that the 'Why didn't Trayvon run?' question has a reasonable answer aside from this was a thug teen who was prone to violence.

Lastly, if we don't all act like your friends, we are psychotic? Get real.

NO, following someone is NOT considered assault. For assault you need a threat. There is no evidence of a threat, just your imagination.

Jesus god, whenever you refute one point the Pro-Trayvon crowd just MAKES UP SOMETHING ELSE. This same poster claimed that beating up people is part of black culture. I know plenty of black people who do not go around getting into street fights or react violently, even when provoked, and I have seen that first hand.

It's not a black thing, it's just desperation and ignorance and a feeling of inferiority and you'll find it in poor and working class communities the world over. The law will NEVER endorse a course of action, either in statute or common law, where a violent physical confrontation is justified by following someone. Just accept it and adapt. Have the "talk". Fighting with strangers is psychotic behavior. There is and can be by definition no serious gripe, it's just pathological behavior and society cannot stand for it.

@ Ruth from Bronx "Why didn't Zimmerman reveal his gun to Trayvon immediately and tell him he was a neighborhood watch man."

Because, without being caused to fear for his safety or that of another (and before the physical encounter, he was merely following Martin to see what he was doing & where he was going), it is a criminal act - assault if he merely points to it, brandishing a weapon if he takes it out.

@RUCB_Alum "Zimmerman's response to being pummeled was to pull his gun and fire. Not to pull his gun and brandish or ward off blows. Not to shoot to wound but to point generally in the center of mass and pull the trigger."

When you pull out a deadly weapon, the intent is to use deadly force. Hollywood has made the public think "oh, you can shoot them in the leg, arm, or some other non-vital part. When you shoot, you shoot to kill - you shoot at the center of mass. Trying to "just wound" someone is an excellent to miss & kill an innocent bystander.

This is why is deadly serious to draw a weapon & a criminal offense to do so without proper cause.

"The wrongful death suit will be argued my much more able lawyers - at least I hope so for the Martins' sake. And most of George Z's belongings will be forfeit. Maybe Rupert Murdoch will buy him new stuff."

As I've been trying to point out the usual expected dynamics of a wrongful death suit have to be modified by the "immunity" provision of Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, Chp. 776, Sec.776.032. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

What will make the contest interesting is subsection three which provides:

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

The initial question will be "Does attorney Crump think his clients can withstand a loss of the civil suit that can subject them to paying for the items listed in the statute? Put another way if Zimmerman wins the case due a determination that his use of force was justified he will have no need for Murdock's money. Mr. O'Mara has already declared his intent to win the statutory immunity for his client. "Intrade" and its more traditional and higher stakes competitors should do a brisk business.

The discovery process of a civil suit will also be more intrusive for the Martins than the criminal trial discovery was.e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LjkgI5ShcWs#action=share

How did a confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon become a physical one anyway. Why didn't Zimmerman reveal his gun to Trayvon immediately and tell him he was a neighborhood watch man. If Trayvon had become physical would it not have been possible to incapacitate him.It was the fact that he didn't do either of these things that makes me think he is guilty of at least manslaughter. Could it be that Zimmerman provoked Trayvon and allowed himself to be beaten in order to have injuries that would support his claim of acting in self defense. Why was the jury so interested in finding out who it was who was yelling help. Any actor can yell help.

Refusing to identify yourself as benign when you're following someone and are armed is malicious. George evidenced malice when he escalated his poor judgment of following him by then refusing to say that he was a good guy watchman. That's because he wasn't. He was acting like an intimidating cocky thug because he knew he was armed and T wasn't . He started a fight with a young unarmed and innocent guy knowing he could kill him if he resisted his intimidation. The jury had ample evidence presented to see this clearly. lesson learned; in a stand your ground state you'd better kill your opponent because the last man standing is innocent .George knew this and knew that T was not armed .He deliberately chose to escalate by not identifying himself after initiating threatening behavior. That's evidence of malice and depraved indifference to life as he knew he was armed and he knew he was intimidating T and he knew Trayvon could attempt to defend himself from his intimidation as he has the right to stand his ground too. And that he,G could meet his standing his ground resistence to being intimidated by using deadly force against Trayvons fists. That is grounds for at least manslaughter and I would say even 2nd degree murder as G evidenced malice and even an intent to incite t to resist his intimidation when cornered.And then when T had to fend him off with his fists, he knows he can escalate a confrontation knowing he was armed and the other guy wasn't. If his intentions were good he would have attempted to de-escalate T natural fear and anger at being followed by a stranger. The evidence therefore to the jury showed a continuous intent to harm Trayvon leading to his shooting him as T was standing his ground against his aggression and intimidation. The evidence shows Trayvon innocent of wanting to start a fight and of attempting to flee from his pursuer. Only when cornered did he fight. The jury failed because they did not grant equal status and rights to Trayvon as to George. They chose to disregard T's right to self defense or to see the evidence that showed it was G exhibiting all along the way, malice, intimidation and depraved indifference to life as he was armed and ready to kill, the unarmed guy who resisted his intimidation in a stand your ground state, The jury verdict is a disgrace to the rule of law as they vilified Trayvons rights by siding with a might makes right ethos in defiance of the evidence presented that Trayvon was standing his ground against an armed aggressor.

Reasonable doubt is not any doubt, it's not certitude. It is only reasonable to see G as a victim defending his life if you vilify Trayvon which is what the jury did in denying him the right to self defense. Why did the unarmed six foot black guy beat on George? because that's what young black guys do-is their reasoning which is an unfair bias. There was ample evidence presented that it was T who was defending himself with his fists from the aggressive and intimidating armed gunman. But the fear conjuring script of the society/ jury and those that defend the verdict is of the six foot tall black beat down not of the armed watchman but who has more to fear?

Zimmerman committed the first assault. There was testimony that Trayvon was in some form of distress over Zimmerman's tailing him. And, yes, even following someone around can be considered an assault. No assault was committed against Zimmerman prior to Zimmerman beginning to follow Martin.

Martin's response to being assaulted was to commit battery. Not a good choice but not an entirely unreasonable choice, either.

Zimmerman's response to being pummeled was to pull his gun and fire. Not to pull his gun and brandish or ward off blows. Not to shoot to wound but to point generally in the center of mass and pull the trigger.

The prosecution overcharged Zimmerman - There was no depraved indifference, there was no murderous intent, Zimmerman just wanted the beating to stop. The overcharge just about guaranteed that the prosecution would lose.

The wrongful death suit will be argued my much more able lawyers - at least I hope so for the Martins' sake. And most of George Z's belongings will be forfeit. Maybe Rupert Murdoch will buy him new stuff.

George Zimmerman is the only person alive who /knows/ what /actually/ transpired on that ill-fated night: which one of the two individuals, himself or Trayvon Martin, was the aggressor and which one acted in legitimate self-defense.

The jury's sole duty was to rule on one question, and one question only: Did the evidence presented to them /prove/, **BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT**, that George Zimmerman was guilty of the **MURDER** of Trayvon Martin.

The legal definition of murder, of course, being **premeditated** killing that was not done in self-defense.

A juror or jury that remains with reasonable doubt as to the guilt of a defendant-- **FOR THE SPECIFIC CRIME HE IS BEING CHARGED WITH**-- cannot, in good conscience, vote to convict said defendant.

This is something that I'm afraid you, along with many others who have posted here, do not seem to get.

"I'm sick of being told that we have to respect the jury's verdict. Left, right and center are in unison stressing this above everything. Why would a six foot tall black man beat on a [white] man? , , , "

C'mon rose-ellen, keep to the script.I don't think that any of the prosecutors have seen Mr. Martin as a "man";mostly they and "sympathetic" pundits refer to him as a "boy" or a "child".Why do you think they do that without any challenge or rebuke?Is that part of what's causing your illness?

I'm sick of being told that we have to respect the jury's verdict. Left, right and center are in unison stressing this above everything. Why would a six foot tall black man beat on a [white] man? Because that's what they do-this verdict proclaims.The jury vilified Trayvons right to self defense. That is societal bias which the jury expressed in their unjust verdict. The evidence was presented to show malice and intimidation on George's part as well as indifference to life and there could have been and should have been a conviction.

I wasn't going to comment on your comment either, but "discretion as the better part of valor" was never really my strong suit.

I became aware of the Martin case in February, 2012 via the NYT's Charles Blow and the calls for an investigation circulating throughout the Internet's Newsfeeds and Opinion sites. Over time, the propagandizing pictures of the victim (invariably looking 3 and 4 years younger than the the reported age of the victim) and the unrefuted positive racial attitudes of the admitted "perpetrator" came to convince me that we were being manipulated by a media meme.Almost as tragic as Mr. Martin's death, is the casual currency that words like "boy" and "child" have acquired as appropriate characterizations of 17 year olds. Let's have a round-table with that population about those characterizations. Until then, consider this:TO AVOID LOOKING LIKE A CRIMINAL, DON’T COMMIT A CRIMEhttp://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-07-17.html#read_more

"In Zimmerman’s call to the non-emergency number of the Sanford Police Department, many thought they could hear him disparaging Martin in a whispered comment that supposedly sounded like “F---ing coons.” But Florida Assistant State Attorney John Guy proved in dramatic fashion during his opening arguments last month that Zimmerman’s second word was actually “punks.” The defendant was also asked about this during his Feb. 29, 2012, interview with then-lead detective Chris Serino."

Why is it that so many people have a negative reaction when they seea Minority Male, whether they are African American or Hispanic?

They don't have the same reaction when they see a Chinese, Asian,a Hasidic Male?One of the Elephants in The Room, is that normal, non racist human beingshave a fear reaction when they see a Minority Male, especially if theyare alone, they feel vulnerable.

The Latino & the African American community have to address thatfact, without prettying it up.

In NYC, most of the time, when there is a video of a person beingmugged, attacked, assaulted, getting harassed it is a Minority Male,belonging to one of two groups, African American or latino.

There are many murders taking place in places like Chicago,all of it by minority males, none of it by White Males.

The reason that Minority Males commit so many street crimes,can be chalked up to lack of opportunity, rejection by society,it's the biological parents fault, bad schooling.

All of those may be valid reasons, but the results are the same.People are still afraid of minority males.

Even Jesse Jackson understood that fear, when he said the following:

"Keep Hope Alive", speech at the Democratic National Convention (19 July 1988)

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery.

Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved....

After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.

Also, the well-intentioned exchange between Brian and Emily was predictably inadequate for the task at hand.

Worthwhile race discourse seems to require the input of a self-determined (read: resistant to white-supremacist indoctrination) black person, to fill in white folks' usual blind spots in this area...

Juror B37's interview was priceless because it exemplified the un-self-aware white-supremacism/black-inferioritism that, for many white folks, is like water to fish; they live it, breathe it, can't see it. Blacks are treading in it, trying not to drown.

This racism unconsciousness/ denial led to Trayvon's death, led to George's acquittal, and is the current frontier of race justice.

Some kind of town hall on this incident – in which participants can speak freely and respectfully, and which is adequately representative as described above – would be a good place to inaugurate the required truth and reconciliation process.

Otherwise, as this segment and comments exemplify, we're wasting our time. And I'm not doing it anymore.

One of the problems is that when a person carries a gun, they are different. Not necessarily better, not necessarily worse, but different. There is something in our culture that praises vigilantism, whether in an official capacity or not, and someone who is going after someone they perceive as doing wrong is celebrated as an icon in film, video, and literature. If Zimmerman had been carrying a taser this may have had a very different outcome, but I wonder if it would have escalated even to its use had he not felt the special sense of power that carrying a gun gives to a person. I am not a gun user, but I have many friends who are, and for varying reasons. But all agree that it changes you, even to hold one. I think that not enough is emphasized regarding the power and permanence this weaponry imposes upon a situation. Once you bring force that is by its design lethal, it is very hard to back down.

@David from Fredericksburg, VA:You are right: Homocide, not murder. I stand corrected.

Self-defense is allowed in Holland, yes, but walking around with a gun is not. Even if self-defense has been proven, it would still be a legal offense to carry a gun in public and using it (which I think is the bigger problem here).

@geTaylor:I'm sorry to still leave you in the dark here, as my knowledge doesn't reach far enough to suggest the best legal system.My point only being that I think it is irresponsible to leave a verdict up to a handful of randomly selected people that have no expertise in making legal decisions. I think this is a professional task.

"A person has been killed! How is it possible that the murderer can walk free, with no penalty what so ever?"

This, I believe, is an example of begging the question (what the phrase actually means, not what it is commonly but erroneously used for.)

You, Mr. Johan, /assert/ that George Zimmerman /murdered/ Trayvon Martin, without presenting any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion.

So tell me, Mr. Johan, when did you stop beating your wife?

"Lastly, did you notice how Zimmerman gained weight, to give him have a harmless teddy bear appearance (and not the physicality of an aggressor)?

It's all been staged, this entire trial"

Your assertion that George Zimmerman's weight gain or any other change in his appearance that could be seen as making him look less strong/threatening is just that: an /assertion/, not backed-up with any evidence. (Wouldn't you think, for example, that the stress that Zimmerman was surely under throughout the time since the incident occurred, his very life hanging in the balance, is just as likely an explanation for said weight gain, etc.?)

But even if your assertion were correct, it would neither:a) change anything about the facts that are known about the actual case or the evidence that was presented to the jury,nor,b) mean that the entire trial had "all been staged"

That a defendant-- /any/ defendant-- would want to do whatever he could to increase the likelihood of those who will decide his fate being sympathetic toward him is not at all unreasonable.

Would you really expect any different?

Would you /do/ any different, were it /your/ life at stake?

Nor does such calculation/strategy/action on the part of a defendant, in and of itself, discredit his defense.

I think it's fair to say that a lot of shoes would be in different mouths, or other bodily orifices, if you compared various popular reactions to the O.J. verdict and the Zimmerman verdict. Who was the Attorney General back then; and did he demand a national dialogue about televised "slow-speed" chases?

I have to temper my initial response by recalling that I may not have a perfected knowledge of the world. So could you indulge my aspiration to understand, not what unavoidable misfortune forces you amongst us, but what legal system you perceive as best able to handle the legal issues raised by Florida vs. Zimmerman? (and what those issues might be?).

First, it strikes me that nobody here actually questions the US Jury system.How can you put the verdict in the hands of a lay person, who can only respond emotionally to a case?

Secondly, stand-your-ground is putting the law in hands of trigger happy, wanna-be law enforcement people like Zimmerman.A person has been killed! How is it possible that the murderer can walk free, with no penalty what so ever?

Maybe it's because I am not from the US, but it leaves me completely puzzled and frustrated.

Lastly, did you notice how Zimmerman gained weight, to give him have a harmless teddy bear appearance (and not the physicality of an aggressor)?

"geTaylor - that's the thing, had the prosecution truly wanted to win the case, they would have argued for the said exempted language to be included in the jury instructions. the standard is lower for vol/invol manslaughter, which would have been much more reasonable given all the facts, known and unknown."

Let's try to stay together on this thing - my question was " ... can you explain your view of the particular evidence that establishes (? beyond a reasonable doubt?) that Zimmerman "initially provoked violence against him"? "

Are you now saying that the prosecution was "dogging it", "not actually looking for a conviction", for the whole trial, and not just when they failed to have the jury instructed on circumstances that would defeat, beyond a reasonable doubt, the self-defense issue? (Frankly if they were trying to lose, they could have fooled me - Bondi and DeLaGuardia gambled with their professional futures in withholding "Brady" material and I could've just "plotzed" when they submitted the request for "felony murder" based on child abuse leading to the death of the child.)

"If Zimmerman assaulted Martin by following him, then nearly every NYC police officer is a criminal. If they follow someone & they turn out not to be doing anything wrong, by your statement, they've assaulted the person."

Yes. It is not my definition, it is the legal definition. The assault starts when you *think* you are in danger. To the degree that the NYPD is perceived as a source of danger rather than aid and protection, they are committing thousands of legal assaults every day.

"The biggest problem in this country is that EVERYONE wants to be an angry victim. A little charity (as in, caritas or agape)would go a long way to ending the bloodletting."

Then you must be against Florida's SYG statute, too. It promotes violence over understanding and charity.

@ RUCB_Alum"Zimmerman assaulted Martin first - If you are willing to accept the fact that the mere act of following a person can be considered an assault"

No, I don't accept that walking in your own neighborhood constitutes an assault. We are not responsible for others' perceptions - only our own actions.

If Zimmerman assaulted Martin by following him, then nearly every NYC police officer is a criminal. If they follow someone & they turn out not to be doing anything wrong, by your statement, they've assaulted the person.

The biggest problem in this country is that EVERYONE wants to be an angry victim. A little charity (as in, caritas or agape)would go a long way to ending the bloodletting.

Backpedal all you want. In the legal profession using the right "word" is sort of important. I'm not saying you don't have a point, not a very good one, but still a point. What I am saying is that you're inarticulate, rude, and presumptuous and it's impossible to understand complex legal ideas without precise language, which you seem incapable of doing, so maybe you should lay off? Or keep going, but writing "semantics, straw man" is not real convincing to anyone.

"The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. . . "

Neither of us should be responsible to the other to fully outline the concepts of self-defense, either as an ordinary element that a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or as a finding that must be sought by a defendant seeking immunity from prosecution; however, as best you can, can you explain your view of the particular evidence that establishes (? beyond a reasonable doubt?) that Zimmerman "initially provoked violence against him"?"

blacksocialist from BKbaby "responded":

"geTaylor - that's the thing, had the prosecution truly wanted to win the case, they would have argued for the said exempted language to be included in the jury instructions. the standard is lower for vol/invol manslaughter, which would have been much more reasonable given all the facts, known and unknown"

"No river of blood necessary - parents & community leaders just have to let young people (and older ones as well) that violent reaction begets violent reaction - so knock it off & live."

Sorry, David. Your response displays a profound lack of understanding of what it takes to live in an America that undervalues your existence, under-resources your 'group' and finds it easier to cage you rather than educate you.

Zimmerman assaulted Martin first - If you are willing to accept the fact that the mere act of following a person can be considered an assault IF the person being followed feels threatened by the follower. Did Trayvon feel threatened? We will never know, will we? Jeantel's testimony points to it. And that becomes the sad lesson of this mess. With Florida's SYG being what it is, make sure you are the last one standing.

geTaylor - that's the thing, had the prosecution truly wanted to win the case, they would have argued for the said exempted language to be included in the jury instructions. the standard is lower for vol/invol manslaughter, which would have been much more reasonable given all the facts, known and unknown.

"The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. . . "

Neither of us should be responsible to the other to fully outline the concepts of self-defense, either as an ordinary element that a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or as a finding that must be sought by a defendant seeking immunity from prosecution; however, as best you can, can you explain your view of the particular evidence that establishes (? beyond a reasonable doubt?) that Zimmerman "initially provoked violence against him"?"

Forget about getting an answer - I asked the same question & he responded:

"david - you have no idea what you are talking about. as ive educated the knuckle known as mr wrong, I suggest you do research on the jury instructions and what was excluded. just pathetic"

"The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. . . "

Neither of us should be responsible to the other to fully outline the concepts of self-defense, either as an ordinary element that a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or as a finding that must be sought by a defendant seeking immunity from prosecution; however, as best you can, can you explain your view of the particular evidence that establishes (? beyond a reasonable doubt?) that Zimmerman "initially provoked violence against him"?

knuckles - you people really have trouble understanding. there is something called jury instructions, the defense was successful in keeping out language which detailed when "stand your ground" could not be used as a defense, so it was never in play. as for not being articulate, take your racist suggestions to your cave..... just pathetic

"You're right - it's time that all violent "sub-cultures" get fixed. It will make for a much better place to live for all."

Maybe...but there is a river of blood between here and there unless we carry some understanding that not everyone shares our own 'vision' of how to get there. I have no doubt that the atmosphere in Dodge City or Tombstone was far more polite than you will find in a modern city punctuated with the occasional gun battle."

No river of blood necessary - parents & community leaders just have to let young people (and older ones as well) that violent reaction begets violent reaction - so knock it off & live.

You've expressed your views and intention not to give more money to WNYC....Why don't you get a jump on that commitment and stop posting here?

"No justice, no peace" IS NOT terrorism. It is a demonstration of not permitting the society we live in to be based on exploitation. We'll never have zero, but we can always put up with less.

At least bring something new...As much as it pains me, *IF* I had been on the GZ jury, I would have had to found him NOT GUILTY, too. How about you? If you were Trayvon Martin and thought that a creepy guy was ogling you in preparation for an invitation for gay sex would you have assaulted him? Would you have done it if you saw he had a gun?

So, I'm stupid because I, along with many others, find you insulting and inarticulate.

Why doncha just write that you think that the "exemption" is Section 776.041 (where the use of deadly force is unlawful if the use of force was by the initial aggressor, with some other caveats).

This is what took you 10+ posts to explain? Yeah, WOW is right. It wasn't much of an argument by the defense, did it have to be? There was no evidence in the first place. I can't believe I spent all this time trying to understand your one facile point. What a waste of space.

@ blacksocialist from BKbaby"david - you have no idea what you are talking about. as ive educated the knuckle known as mr wrong, I suggest you do research on the jury instructions and what was excluded. just pathetic"

Thank you for verifying that you are simply expounding on what you IMAGINED happened, as opposed to what is KNOWN to have happened.

"You're right - it's time that all violent "sub-cultures" get fixed. It will make for a much better place to live for all."

Maybe...but there is a river of blood between here and there unless we carry some understanding that not everyone shares our own 'vision' of how to get there. I have no doubt that the atmosphere in Dodge City or Tombstone was far more polite than you will find in a modern city punctuated with the occasional gun battle.

knuckle, did you finish high school? your cognitive skills are pathetic. i'll say this one last time you dolt, the exemption (what I last published) was successfully excluded by the defense, NOT stand your ground. do you understand now knuckle? .... just WOW

What evidence? There literally was no evidence. That was the crux of the trial. You're saying that because YOU believe Zimmerman started the fight with Trayvon the judge should have disallowed the "Use Of Deadly Force" law from the jury instructions? That is your point? Really blew my mind.

Are we going to re-argue the whole Zimmerman trial? Because as we know already, I would win. Take six, take a deep breath and think before you write next time.

There are a lot more killing of blacks by blacks than whites by blacks, or in this case "white Hispanics." Maybe the focus should be there. Seems like a black life is only important when taken by a white.

This and other videos like it should tell you all you need to know about the difference between the races in dealing with a perceived threat.

Florida's SYG statute would have made it okay for these boys to have been shot to death. Do you think that would lead to more violence or less?

Violence is not always a good response to a challenge but IT IS the way many of our minorities have been socialized. SYG laws are a way to declare war on a sub-culture. We need to see that it gets fixed."

You're right - it's time that all violent "sub-cultures" get fixed. It will make for a much better place to live for all.

I will allow my wnyc membership expire and never renew again. I was horrified by Brian today. Zimmerman had just as much right to walk on the street as Trayvon did. Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. Brian is inciting violence by his irresponsible, racist discussion. Zimmerman did NOT bring race into this.

@David - I agree that, from a legal standpoint, there was reasonable doubt. My point is that, assuming that you believe Rachel to be credible, and I do, then her story suggests (does not prove) that Zimmerman confronted Martin and may have accosted him, and that the fact that Zimmerman's own narrative appears as a subtext of Rachel's reinforces that theory.

As I wrote in another post, nobody is going to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, there is much here to suggest that Trayvon Martin was profiled. That is a social and cultural issue that relies in nuances, codes and perceptions that don't show figure into evidence in a criminal trial. We need to keep the two issues. - law and culture - separate, but address both - first by, as Eric Holder suggested yesterday, rethinking Stand Your Ground and the second by having discussions such as the one going on here.

The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

This and other videos like it should tell you all you need to know about the difference between the races in dealing with a perceived threat.

Florida's SYG statute would have made it okay for these boys to have been shot to death. Do you think that would lead to more violence or less?

Violence is not always a good response to a challenge but IT IS the way many of our minorities have been socialized. SYG laws are a way to declare war on a sub-culture. We need to see that it gets fixed.

Dude, I agree with your decision to quit before you further embarrass yourself but let me help you a little bit to understand why you don't know what you're talking about.

The word "exemption" is your problem. There is no duty to retreat in Florida self defense law if:

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Why wouldn't his be in the Jury Instructions? What are you even talking about? How would the Judge EXCLUDE the Florida Self Defense law from the Jury instructions in a case where Zimmerman is claiming the affirmative defense of self defense?

And yes, this part of the statute is reproduced verbatim in the jury instructions on pg 12 under the title "Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force", just like I wrote. What did you write? Gobbledegook. I hope your clients get free translation services with the retainer.

You're forgetting that after operator said we dont need you to follow suspect, that you can hear Zimmerman stop running and said OK. He told police in deposition that that's when he headed back to his truck. But then Trayvon came back, high on pot (that's why he went to 711 store----read Jack Cashill on this), ready to do his MMA fighting he loved so much.

He tought Zimm was a gay predator. His friend said so on CNN the other day

If so many listeners are enraged by content on the BL show - why do they continue to listen and comment? Seems many are just looking for an argument, trying to provoke controversy and name callers, who choose this show specifically because they want a big audience. BL commenters would do well by avoiding responding to them and by not "taking the bait" of these "usual suspects."

I'm pretty disgusted with De Blasio & the other NYC mayoral candidates calling the Zimmerman verdict "insulting," or worse.

Did these people follow the trial? Are they familiar with Florida law, especially self-defense and stand your ground? The prosecution and jury were very limited in what could be proven. The evidence was conflicting, there were no eyewitnesses, prosecution witnesses often gave muddled or bad testimony, etc.

If anything good comes out of this trial, I hope it's that people in Stand Your Ground state take another look at those laws and consider if (as I believe) they do more harm than good.

It's not just a potential racial issue, either-- there was a murder in a SYG state when one man confronted his neighbor about his party being too loud (both neighbors were white). And imagine if drivers in "road rage" disputes are emboldened to confront other drivers because they have a gun & figure they can shoot the other person if he/she acts confrontational.

Combine SYG laws with the widespread ability to carry weapons & you're sure to have plenty of ugly incidents that escalate into serious injury or murder.

"We do know Bryan that during his following of Martin, Zimmerman did say in a lower voice tone...F***ING C**NS...which could play a part in bringing about civil rights violation against George Zimmerman."

Direct us to a link of the RAW, UNEDITED BY NBC, 911 recording to back up your claim.

Because, if Zimmerman scared Martin, that was the safe thing to do. Run and call 911 - "there's some weirdo out there stalking me."

By attacking Zimmerman (the story the jury believed), he brought his own death on himself. That is IF it happened that way - I don't know what happened & neither does anyone else other than Zimmerman, Martin & God.

If it didn't happen that way, well God will deal with that. The jury could not find Zimmerman guilty with the case presented to them. If you want to be angry, be angry at the prosecution - the jury rendered the only legitimate verdict they could.

Bryan....you are unbelievable when you said that Zimmerman had no history of violence. In 2005 Zimmerman was arrested and charged with violence and battery of a police officer. In that same year, his fiancé requested and did receive an order of protection, and a restraining order against him for domestic violence.

How do you know that Martin turned on him, based on what? Zimmerman's account....What do you expect Bryan that Zimmerman would say?...that he hit Martin first. We do know Bryan that during his following of Martin, Zimmerman did say in a lower voice tone...F***ING COONS...which could play a part in bringing about civil rights violation against George Zimmerman.

Excerpts:"The gay-rights advocacy group GLAAD has yet to respond to new revelations that Trayvon Martin may have been under the impression that George Zimmerman was a “gay rapist” at the time of their tragic fistfight."....."Jeantel made clear that she was not referring to general fears of a neighborhood rapist but specifically to the sexual orientation of men who are “that kind of way.” Morgan, the low-rated British replacement for beloved talker Larry King, declined to draw her out on the point."

mr wrong - funny you bring up my legal mind, as I graduated from a southern public university law school in the previous century. I suggest you READ (you know how to do that, right?) the jury instructions for yourself, and READ the exemption for yourself. you do know how the "internets" works, yes? .... you people are just so pathetic it hurts

I was curious about the dismissive answer when the caller asked about the phone call. Even if the tape came from 911, the call came from someone's phone. Who's phone made the call seems to be a legitimate question.

1. More blacks attack whites each year than the reverse and yet WNYC never covers any of those attacks. MEVER.

2. In the biased discussions of the Zimmerman trial, every single guest considered him GUILTY. There is no attempt at balance. NONE.

4. WNYC has not covered the cases of any of the people attacked since this case became public. By refusing to cover these cases, WNYC condones black vigilantism. Here are links to document the violence WNYC and NPR want to HIDE from you:

Why did he need to RUN anywhere David? Are you kidding me? zimmerman is a proven liar and the proven instigator of this entire event. Yes, gary he did, get out of his car before the 911 operator told him not to follow, but he never got back in it either!! Some of you people need your head checked I would love to see either of you in a confrontation with zimmerman....smh....lost.

mr wrong - you have no idea what you are talking about. if you want to expound on issues at least do the minimum research to have a cursory idea. and your insistence of a stand your ground "hearing" is of no consequence, as the defense knowingly utilized the defense in arguing that the exemption be excluded from the jury instructions.... just pathetic

Another comment: In evaluating Rachel's testimony, people did not realize that her story was more complicated than it seemed, and suggested two separate stories -- narratives -- that crossed paths when Zimmerman caught up with Martin. Rachel quotes Trayvon as saying the was being followed and was scared; he was trying, he said, to avoid the weird white man who was following him. Then she heard a male voice demand, "What are you doing here?" That second voice was not out of Trayvon's narrative; he thought he was being followed. What Rachel heard, however, was consistent with Zimmerman's story that he was following a suspicious character, and his recorded comment that suspicious character -- "punks" -- often got away. She then heard Trayvon say "Get off" -- the two narratives met -- and the phone went dead.

To me, if you listened carefully, this double-narrative made Rachel's testimony more convincing. She was telling, not merely her own story but, unbeknownst to her, the story that, at the time that she reported her conversation, she did not know -- i.e., Zimmerman's story. Neither Trayvon nor Rachel would have expected the pursuer to say "What are you doing here?" -- that's Zimmerman's story line. That exchange "What are you doing here?" and "Get off!" sums up the misapprehensions that ended in Trayvon's death. Unless you think that Rachel made Zimmerman's words up; and, after listening to Rachel testify, I doubt that: she'd have had to know what Zimmerman had told the police; also, Rachel does not think or speak that way; the words were Zimmerman's.

I think that Rachel was credible and that, if you listen carefully to what she is telling us, you will learn a lot about what actually occurred that night -- much more than what Rachel thought that she was relating when she repeated the conversation.

Ms. Jeantel said she heard "get off" when she was questioned by the prosecution. Then when the defense questioned her she said she "kind of heard" Trayvon say "get off."

"Kind of heard" = this is what I imagine went on. I don't know if it was just the stress of testifying, but when she said she "kind of heard" she completely undercut her testimony. Especially if you know how pliable memory is. The more we recall an event (and even more when we discuss it with others), the more distorted the memory becomes.

Under our legal system, the defendant only needs to show a reasonable doubt - the prosecution did a great job of providing that doubt.

I really question the "Media" these days. Even NPR. We have NBC doctoring the 911 calls in this case early on setting the tone. We have talking heads trying to incite riots, with opinions not based on fact or the law but their own agendas. Whether they be ratings, building up constituencies, deflecting other issues etc. What has happened? Why are there so few intelligent voices left or real hard hitting investigative journalism. Add me to the other lady, I will no longer be funding this with my hard earned money.

mr wrong - and your point is? ... you people suggested that the case was not about stand your ground, but it was, and the defense new it was because they successfully convinced the judge to exclude the exemption. do you understand knuckle?

Ms. Bazelon's legal acumen leaves something to be desired as she failed to mention that the same public policy considerations behind Florida's "Stand-Your-Ground" immunity from prosecution in criminal cases (an "immunity" that was not invoked by Mr. Zimmerman during his recent trial) has also provided "immunity" from civil actions to parties who are sued for damages as a result of injuries caused by the recognized "justifiable use of force" and that the Florida statute grants " . . . reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided . . . "[ 2012 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE 776.032 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html ]

Mr. and Mrs. Martin, and their attorney, will have to decide how much they want to wager to call Mr. O'Mara's assertion / bluff that he will seek immunity for Mr. Zimmerman against any civil actions.

There is something unseemly, almost ghoulish, in the tones of voice that look forward to a civil suit against Mr. Zimmerman - relishing the expectation of forcing him to re-answer questions not only about that night, but also about any and all questions about matters that might uncover relevant evidence about the events of that night. Those in favor of a civil action should realize that all matters will be fair game - the "process" will not depend on the details of Trayvon's life and his parents' behavior created by attorney Crump for spoon-feeding to a willing and partisan media.Not even I would be looking forward to the "Trayvon-nado" that would result.( http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/ )

@Heidi from Port Washington "I am a 42-year-old white woman and mother of two, and I am sickened by this verdict. Sickened. What was Trayvon Martin expected to do if he feared he was being stalked by an aggressive male in the middle of the night? Why was he expected to show greater caution and just walk away? He was confronted, defended himself and got shot, for doing nothing more than being in a place that George Zimmerman did not believe he belonged. I am increasingly ashamed by this country."

What was Trayvon supposed to do? Umm, how about run to the house he was staying at? He was almost there when Zimmerman lost sight of him. The shooting occurred FOUR minutes later.

Unfortunately, this doesn't fit the narrative on this station - those damn, inconvenient facts!

Way to go, you are apparently moderation proof! But here's the thing, the "Stand your ground law" was integrated into the basic Florida self defense law in statute 766.012, and yes that was in the jury instructions, because it is part of Florida's basic self defense law. Maybe you should define your terms before you start tossing around insults.

The AG nailed it yesterday: IT'S THE LAW THAT PROTECTED ZIMMERMAN AND WILL EMPOWER THE NEXT VIGILANTE. The NAACP needs to go file a class action suite challenging the constitutionality all the way to the FLA. Supreme Court. Current law amended by the legislture in Tallahasse taking it "on the road" beyond one's home, and SIGNED by Jeb Bush!!

Kimberly from Brooklyn, WNYC/NPR is simply cowed by America’s reactionary interests. It’s been going on for a long time. Hey, we may have KKK or Nazi views on the WNYC. Let’s get all sides here.My expectations are low.

Any one else find it painfully ironic that a mere few weeks ago the SCOTUS gut section 4 of the voting rights act. Quote J. Roberts: "Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, '[v]oter turnout and registration rates' in covered jurisdictions 'now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."

Am I wrong in tying this w/ the recent G.Z. verdict? Have things really changed? In other words, if Juror B37 can abide dangerous laws such as Stand your Ground laws and not see the racial implications therein, won't she and her ilk now more easily abide laws which make voting more difficult in her state?

And in the end we get this: armed whites against blacks and black citizens thwarted from exercising their grievances at the polling booths.

People posting here are confused about the operation of the stand your ground law. Even had Zimmerman been the aggressor -- and there were no witnesses -- he could nonetheless have claimed self-defense if, at the time that he shot Trayvon Martin, he reasonably believed that his life was in danger. Also, under Florida law (and, I am told, the law of all states but Kansas) Zimmerman did not have to prove that he acted in self-defense; the prosecutor had to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not. Given the law and available evidence -- conflicting reports of who was on top; Zimmerman's injuries -- the chances of a conviction was slim. Moreover, given the law and evidence, the jury decided rightly. That does not mean that justice was done; justice was not done. What it means is that, as Eric Holder said yesterday, the laws are bad.

The problem with the juror was not that she believed that there was reasonable doubt, but that despite her claim that no one could know what had happened, she came up with her own narrative to excuse Zimmerman, and implicate Martin in his own death. That narrative was informed by racial profiling, just as Zimmerman's actions seem to most of us to have been motivated by racial stereotyping. This suggests that, while reasonable doubt may have been there as a matter of law and facts, the jurors -- at least one of them -- was imposing her own, tainted values on the facts. She also discounted his friend's testimony regarding Martin's last phone call, testimony that many of us, including I, found credible, and which suggested that Zimmerman had started the fight ("Get off!" Trayvon said) in which Martin was killed.

Which raises the real questions: what caused Martin's death and how can we stop innocent black boys from being shot. Racial attitudes played a large role in determining why Zimmerman left the car; why he suspected Trayvon, why he grabbed Trayvon (which I think that he he did) to "detain" him until police arrived; and why he shot Trayvon when Trayvon fought back. Zimmerman had in the past called 911 to report only black men; more evidence of profiling. The jurors made assumptions about Trayvon and Zimmerman colored by stereotypes; more profiling.

Nothing changes the law, and the law cannot capture or address the many cultural and social nuances that led to Trayvon's death. Given Stand Your Ground and the burden of proof, the verdict was right on the law. But the interview with the juror suggests that the verdict may have been different had the victim been white and the shooter black. In other words, this time, the law happened to coincide with what racial prejudice wanted to do. We need to change the laws, but the bigger problem, the one that everyone senses and is angry about, is our continuing heritage of racism. We need to separate the legal issue -- we aren't going to win that one -- from the socio-cultural one, because it's in us, not our statutes, that our destiny lies.

It's not that anyone will have their mind changed by these posts but isn't it interesting to see how unsophisticated and ignorant the arguments are for the anti-Zimmerman crowd? How they basically come down to promulgating outright falsehoods or tossing around accusations of racism with no foundation or evidence. It's just sad and truly pathetic. You have to pity someone so unmoved by rational, factual analysis, life must be so very hard for these folks.

I am a 42-year-old white woman and mother of two, and I am sickened by this verdict. Sickened. What was Trayvon Martin expected to do if he feared he was being stalked by an aggressive male in the middle of the night? Why was he expected to show greater caution and just walk away? He was confronted, defended himself and got shot, for doing nothing more than being in a place that George Zimmerman did not believe he belonged. I am increasingly ashamed by this country.

@Arrie: Dating a black girl in high school and mentoring black children (which I find circumspect since this wasn't spoken about until AFTER the trial) does not mean a person isn't also racist. An excellent example is Strom Thurmond who impregnated his family's 16-year-old black maid and had a daughter as a result. He seemed to care for his daughter, but was otherwise pretty racist.

I almost wish that she wrote the book because maybe it would cause a mistrial (i.e., maybe she lied during her voir dire). And I'm pretty skeptical that The Today Show has spoken about zimmerman/trayvon trial once, briefly/vaguely. I also think that her attorney-husband trained her for the voir dire because after watching the 20 min video it seemed painstakingly obvious to me (as a law student) that she was trying to get on to the jury. Furthermore, Gd forbid I ever have a jury of people as ignorant as this woman claims to be if I am ever put on trial. HORRIFYING. Praying that the federal government brings a wrongful death suit at the very least.

I am kind of shocked that Bazelon would continue to provide misinformation in this case and present things not based on facts but what she feels might have occurred or what is in someone else's mind. It's wonderful she has such super powers/. I am truly disappointed with this station. It is no better than any other "rag" at this point.

Great show, Brian. But could you PLEASE stop using the words "stand your ground"?

It seems so clearly a three-word phrase invented by some Frank Luntz types somewhere working for ALEX or the NRA to try and make the kind of events that happened in this case sound reasonable.

This is not a case about standing, or about the ground. It's about deadly violence used against a person. These laws allow people to use deadly force against another human being, outside of their home, if the shooter PERCEIVES that they are threatened.

WOW, this guest is soooo uninformed. What a terrible journalist. The Stand Your Ground Law had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. NOTHING. NOTHING. This was based on basic Florida Self Defense law. There was no Stand Your Ground Hearing". How could Zimmerman have "retreated" with Martin sitting on his stomach beating him to death?

Emily, YOUR IGNORANCE IS STUNNING, and that's why B37 doesn't care to hear what you have to say or read your lies.

how is it that no one is talking about the irony of the following quote:

Robert Zimmerman Jr. told Piers Morgan that George Zimnmerman fears vigilantes, and that Trayvon’s parents have used the “race card.”

From NewsOne:

“There are factions, there are groups, there are people that would want to take the law into their own hands as they perceive it, or be vigilante’s in some sense,” he told Morgan during the live interview. “They think that justice was not served, they won’t respect the verdict no matter how it was reached and they will always present a threat to George and his family.”

"geTaylor" wrote,"Perhaps some non-partisan, non-ideological review of why promoters of "Stand Your Ground" felt that the legislation was necessary would be in order."

"non-partisan, non-ideological"?

Do you know of a media outlet that can be expected/trusted to uphold such a standard when race is involved? (Ditto, at least, for "LGBT" or "women's issues")

Surely you don't expect that from WNYC/NPR, do you?........

@ "hilts": "a panel of scholars and commentators who can provide a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the case"

Would you include anyone supportive of /George Zimmerman's/ narrative of the incident on such a panel?

Your first sentence would suggest not, and if that is the case, then what you really meant was:

A panel of scholars and commentators to unanimously to present what would be billed as "a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the case" but what would, in reality, be little more than thinly-veiled propaganda intended to convince the public that George Zimmerman is guilty of "murdering" the "innocent" Trayvon Martin.

Not so. I am white, and I am so outraged by this decision. Personally, I think it was the prosecution's fault. They were terrible. In the summation, all the Prosecutor did was yell at the jury and ask them questions to put more doubt in their minds. Why was there no African American on the jury? He was unarmed!!!! Now I know why Casey Anthony got off. They need a new DA in Florida.

As a white female, I would just like to say that I am incredibly angry about this verdict and the actions of George Zimmerman; I am livid at the ignorance being displayed by Juror B37; and I will never forget Trayvon.

Every Sunday, according to his family, Zimmerman would stroll through Sanford’s black neighborhoods handing out the fliers demanding justice for Sherman Ware, and calling for the police to hold their own officials accountable. Zimmerman would also place the fliers on people’s cars outside churches.

“I challenge you to stand together and to have our voices heard, and to hold accountable all of those officers, and officials whom let this atrocious attack pass unpunished until the media revealed it,” one of the fliers reads in part. “This animal could have attacked anyone of us, our children or loved ones in his alcohol fueled rage.”

The officers whom Zimmerman targeted for accountability in the Sherman Ware incident were all cleared by the Seminole County Sheriff’s investigation, despite Zimmerman’s repeated accusations that police gave kid-glove treatment to a white officer’s son who beat a defenseless, homeless black man.

Why has no one mentioned that zimmerman's father is a retired judge of the same city? Don't you think this has something to do with why the police letting him go? How many times had the police responded to his previous constant calls?

We know Zimmerman dated a black girl in school, he mentored underprivileged black children in his home, and there are other things that one can look up on the news to disprove this racist narrative... then add that 100% of the robberies in the neighborhood were by black youths and I find this conversation ridiculous - particularly for WNYC.

Why should race, gender or religion enter into it at all? If Zimmmerman had used the "n" word, then that would have meant it's a hate crime. And by the way, men can get raped too! And beaten by wives! That happsens too. And certainly white people are sometimes murdered by blacks. I personally know of one or two. Race, gender and religion should NEVER enter into the discussion, unless there is clear evidence of a premeditated hate crime! Otherwise, the subject of race, gender or religion should never come up!

I have donated thousands of dollars to WNYC over the years. I will no longer do that, and I wanted to let you know why. The Brian Lehrer Show has become increasingly problematic around issues of race. Brian repeatedly turns to white guests to expound on the "race issue" and he talks (part of the job, I know) when he really should listen. The call in for Southern white women on race, was really a watershed for me. It said a lot to me about the judgement of the people working on the show.

I vowed to not listen after that, but WNYC is such a part of my routine, that I admit I have a few times since, but in each instance. I have been shocked and disappointed. His criticism yesterday against Obama for not taking the role of "Civil Rights Activist in Chief" . . . well, willfully ignorant is the most generous assessment I can make. In what world would that be constructive?

I have just turned off today's show after listening to him hem and haw his way through whether juror B37 from the George Zimmerman trial was reeeaaally impacted by racial bias. It's a great thing for him to live in a world where he has the *privilege* of such ambiguity. But, I can't listen to it anymore, and I won't financially support the station because of it.

The person who was stalking instigated the fight. That person was Zimmerman. Stand your ground sets up the scenerio where a stalker can murder his prey and then claim self defense. In this situation, both Martin and Zimmerman were entitled to self defense and the "winner" of the fight got to tell the story since the "loser" died.

Brian you are weak. You let a caller get away with nonsense. Zimmerman was hunting to kill. This lunatic joined a neighborhood watch group armed and ready to shoot. What Florida has said that is OK to kill unarmed African Americans?

People who disagree with the verdict have no evidence to support their position, only unproven accusations and speculation with no evidence.

People who agree with the verdict see that ALL the evidence available to the prosecution was in the trial, and it wasn't much. It wasn't convincing and the only thing left to do is to move forward.

This was a political prosecution. The powers that be thought we needed a trial to ensure a racist vigilante didn't get away with murder. So we had a trial, now we have a verdict, the rest is all fantasy.

What I don't understand is how little everyone is making of Martin's fear? Being followed persistently by some guy who looks like a thug to me (maybe because I'm a woman all strange men look like thugs, especially when they're following me) is terrifying. And I doubt that it's less scary for a man, particularly because a man feels like it may come to a struggle. It's unfair that no one is putting themselves in his place. He TRIED to walk away from the get-go. How was he supposed to know Zimmerman was a bona fide neighborhood watchman?Has anyone read that piece about the girls who fled the security guys in the supermarket who tried to arrest them for buying water? They were afraid they were impersonating cops, they didn't recognize the badges. They nearly ran the guys down with their car trying to get away.

Ahh yes, here we have the aggrieved knuckledraggers (mr bad and gary.... where's the dummy from Washington heights). you knuckles never cease to amaze the hoops you jump in and out to justify your pathetic racist worldview.... just dumb.... now go back to your caves

Brian and Emily, I'm a little disappointed in your discussion of Rachel Jeantel: "She acted like she didn't want to be there." I'm sure that's how the jurors perceived her, but is that not a racial judgement? I Most black people I know (including myself) don't want to be involved in the criminal justice system where our appearance, our language and our very being will be judged harshly.

Also, there are tons of people called upon to testify who might be hard to understand-- non Native speakers, people from New Orleans-- is that to be held against them?

They can determine who was screaming. There are voice pattern tests that linguists do all the time. Even if you try to disguise your voice the machine measures your speech pattern and can id the voice. If Zimmerman were teste against that recording they could determine if the voice pattern is his, if not then it's Trevon Martin's. And further if the family has recording of Trevon's voice they can compare his to the recording.

What I've learned is a boy is dead because of social prejudice and ignorance. I also learned that the prosecution should have asked Zimmerman why did he follow Martin in the first place when he was told by the 911 dispatcher he shouldn't.

Since Treyvon had no injuries (except for the shot) and Zimmerman had a brokem nose, cuts on the back of his head, grass stains on his back, it is pretty clear the evidence points to Zimmerman being the one in trouble at that point. Beyond the fact that he lost track of Treyvon as was shown on the call, so was most likely attacked by surprise.

Please Bill, compare the case of Marissa Alexander who got 20 years for firing a warning shot to her abusive ex-husband and the case of George Zimmerman who was let of scott-free for pursuing and killing another individual. Please compare these who and ask your guest about this...To me there is a great disconnect between these two cases in which the Stand your ground law was being used.

I didn't watch the whole trial, but if I'd been the prosecution, I'd have asked that we imagine two scenarios:

I am grabbing for my gun, and I am shouting "help" with my whole body -- does that make sense? Isn't the *gun* the help I am counting on? How could I possibly be concentrating on getting my gun, which is where I have decided to put my hope, and be shouting with such vigor?

I am grabbing for my gun and the moment the gun goes off, I stop shouting for help -- does that make sense? Especially since Zimmerman says he didn't think he'd shot Trayvon? Why would I stop shouting for help the moment the gun goes off? Why wouldn't I shout "help" MORE?

I see that someone is grabbing for a gun, so I start screaming for help with all my might- now THAT makes sense.

I am shot in the heart and I stop shouting for help - now THAT makes sense.

I'm so sick and tired of some sons of the devil who control the media and have sawn across the land the seeds of hatred, they have influenced and confused the mass once again just like how they do intercontinentaly and opened an old topic just for the sake of fueling scorn, frustation, hatred, separation between the masses and Washington now as the ring leader of all this.Zimmerman is an American Latin individual who was doing a job protecting a housing project and simply used deadly force when his judgment was clouded by Trevons attack. The media and these lazy public speakers come out with this and that and are bent of putting the race card out as if this case had anything to do with it, but if you will, life has a weird and unjustuful way of potraying itself and yes humans react biasly towards one another, so i don't care what anyone says but a 17 year old black, white, brown or yellow can be strong and can cause harm or simply look intimidating and trust me young kids in America or anywhere else can be violent, impulsive, crazy, I know because I was young once too and at 17 my friends and I were not little angels matter fact we were violent and scary towards anybody specially when we were drunk or high that no one including our parents could tolerate us.And does anyone remember Bernie Getz, this guy opened fire on some black folks when approched on a train in ny and a lot of controversy was made but neither was to blame. I pray for Jesus and friends to come along fast because this earth is becoming a poison to our souls and these devils are detremental to my mind.

Zimmerman said Trayvon was acting suspiciously. We don't have any evidence that he wasn't. Just the opinion of this guest. Why don't we talk about the Jeantel interview with Piers Morgan? She described the word cracker as a word used to describe a cop or security officer so fine, given. It's not racist. So if a creepy ass cracker = a creepy ass cop or security guard isn't that evidence that Trayvon already had a bad attitude, wanted to mess with ? Somebody who may have had a legitimate interest in stopping him and speaking with him? But he was already ready to fight that "creepy ass cracker" wasn't he? I think it's obvious who had animus...

This Juror's logic is typical of Zimmerman apologists..... Florida not racist? So Zimmerman, a grown man kills a kid who is black , goes free.... a BLACK woman fires a gun in the air in fear of being attacked and gets 20 years ... no amount of Fox and friends/Limbaugh logic can tell me this is justice..... get ready and cue the "what about the black kids that kill black kids " whining. What about the WHITE kids that murder /slaughter ( yes the LEGAL definition of murder) White kids over and over again in the suburbs of this country.

They can find out who was on the 911 tape ... it's called a VOICEPPRINT... it's unique like a finger print. Zimmerman is alive to provide a sample. Trevon is not

His friend Rachel Jeantel, the gal he called that night, put the idea in Trayvon's head that the guy following him was a gay rapist. She explained last night on CNN's Piers Morgan the meaning of the term she used on the phone with Trayvon----"crazy ass cracka." "Cracka" means "man". A man who is the law. the man could be black or white.

Rachel Jeantel said some of this in her testimony. But apparently, she felt a little more forthcoming with Piers Morgan. But dont expect her to speak up on this again on this. Al Sharpton and the NAACP have probably rushed lawyers to Rachel's house last night to counsel her on how they must all maintain the "correct" narrative-----that this was a racial profiling case, with Zimmerman doing the profiling.

When liberals and the prosecutor argued that Zimmerman was a "wannabee" cop, I've been countering that Trayvon was a wannabe gangsta, based on his own facebook and text messages. But my assumption was incomplete. Trayvon was also homophobic.

So, mystery solved. Trayvon may not have been a black racist. If he had survived the gunshot, he might have been charged with a hate crime. Why can't gay people catch a break!!!

But the irony still remains: Zimmerman was an 0Bama supporter. An advocate for the homeless. A mentor to some black kids. Shit, he probably would have been one of the protesters following the verdict. Unfortunately, he's also the liberal who got slammed in the face by reality----and by Trayvon's watermellon cooler (it was not ice tea!)

I think what Zimmerman did was completely overkill. The stand your ground law is ridiculous and dangerous... made for zealous enforcement types. Your guest seems to not be up on the details. All I have read said that Martin was walking in the walkways behind the houses and looking around (clearly not sure which unit was the one he was staying in (not uncommon in these cookie cutter developments), not simply "walking down the street." I can see why Zimmerman called 911 but not why he followed him. I think the prosecution overreached leaving the jury with nothing to work with. We have to remember the jury pretty much only knows what is presented to them... I often find jury comments cringe-inducing but I try to remember that.

I'd like to know if the comments of juror B37 can be used as evidence of prejudice in a federal hate crime trial? They point is not whether these comments accurately reflect what went on in the jury room, but rather of this juror's bias.

He wasnt walking down the sidewalk, he was walking up near the houses - in a neighborhood that had multiple breakins. The man did his job watching the neighborhood, do we forget that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and beaten before he fired a shot?!

Am I the only one or is anyone else had enough of the Zimmerman case? How did a self defense case in some small town in FLA become a NATIONAL obsession, yet the issues that TRULY effect race relations (economics, class, education, the "war" on drugs, etc., etc, continue to be OVERWHELMINGLY ignored? (with the rare EXCEPTION of your show, Brian!)

Zimmerman Juror B37 foolishly drank the Kool-Aid served up by Zimmerman's lawyers and let a guilty man go free.

Brian, instead of these piecemeal daily segments on the Trayvon Martin case, why don't you hold a 4 hour Town Hall Forum at the Greene Space with a panel of scholars and commentators who can provide a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the case

The reason for the outrage over this verdict is that the media lied to the people about the details and complexity of this case (Thanks, Brian) and created a disbelief that the jury could ever possibly reach this conclusion.

.... and, of course, that President Hoodie inappropriately injected himself into the debate and continued to make the case that he is, counter intuitively, the most RACIALLY DIVISIVE person to ever sit in the White House.

While I'm sure WNYC and its featured experts are primed to push the meme that "stand your ground" laws are responsible for a growing national problem, I really do hope that there is some reliance on data for that assertion beyond displeasure with the "Not Guilty" verdict in the Zimmerman trial and displeasure with the factually different case of Marissa Alexander, another victim of persecutor Cory's "DeFarge" complex.http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-11/story/jacksonville-woman-sentenced-20-years-prison-stand-your-groundI expect that this campaign, to stigmatize heightened legal protection for self-defenders, is designed to cover the Administration's retreat from its seeming commitment to charge Zimmerman with a violation of Martin's civil rights - such charges will never be justly filed.Perhaps some non-partisan, non-ideological review of why promoters of "Stand Your Ground" felt that the legislation was necessary would be in order.

Show Archive

Feeds

WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.